Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Diggester writes with this news from the Times of India: "Pakistani authorities on Friday further widened the crackdown on websites with blasphemous contents by restricting access to popular social networking website Twitter. Pakistani users were unable to log into Twitter after internet service providers blocked access to the site." The block was prompted by Twitter's refusal to take down messages promoting a cartoon contest to which the Pakistani government objects for its depictions of Muhammad. This end-run falls right in line with the pessimistic reaction from Reporters Without Borders to the Pakistani court decision calling Internet censorship unconstitutional.

This type of comment reduces complex issues to simple bitter theophobic (yep I just coined a word) rhetoric and it is no better than the folks who force their religious beliefs on other through institutionalized oppression and social shunning.

Since the beginning of civilization clans and tribes have sought to extinguish each other so that theirs would thrive. In a world of constrained resources this actually makes some evolutionary sense. Now that our clans and tribes are defined as much by structures

No, you didn't. You just discovered a word you had never heard before.

And the AC used it wrongly, too. Theophobia [wiktionary.org] is the fear of one or more gods, and is therefore an attribute of a pious follower of some religion, and would likely be approved by that religion. More likely, the AC meant religiophobic, as religiophobia [wiktionary.org] is the fear of religions.

“Pakistan’s telecommunications regulators shut down Twitter for about eight hours Sunday because the social networking site would not remove content the government found objectionable to Muslims, but the nation’s prime minister stepped in to reverse the ban, officials said.”

This type of comment reduces complex issues to simple bitter theophobic (yep I just coined a word) rhetoric and it is no better than the folks who force their religious beliefs on other through institutionalized oppression and social shunning.

Nonsense. Your assertion that absence of superstition is no better than any of the contradictory superstitions which cripple our societies is a contemptible form of moral relativism.

A little introspection in the world would be a revolutionary thing.

And is explicitly banned by most of the big religions extant today ("don't ask the wrong questions or you're an apostate/heathen/whatever"), thus reinforcing GP's point that "superstition is slavery". Which was the point you disagreed with, and must confuse you quite a bit.

Actually, Bible colleges are incredibly introspective and address "controversial" questions. I suppose that is only one religion (assuming you group all forms of Christianity) which would still make the statement "most of the big religions" true.

Also, most atheists confuse "lack of belief" with "disbelief." Lack of belief is rational and not in any way equivalent with belief. Disbelief is in the same category as belief in that you take it to be true even though you do not know it is true. Most atheists

Most people who believe in God/god(s) also don't believe in God/god(s). It's just the atheists are more thorough in their disbelief.

Christians/Muslims/Jews don't believe in Odin, Zeus, Ra or Shiva. Atheists don't either, they just add one more god to the list of gods they don't believe in. Which, if you think about it what's the difference in not believing in 1000 vs 1001 gods. If the first thousand don't exist, why would you believe in the thousand and first.

Most atheists fall into the disbelief category and have more in common with religious believers than they are willing to recognize.

I've found the reverse to be true. Atheism covers a pretty broad range. As with religious believers, there'll be plenty of atheists who don't realize how stupid it is to voluntarily assume the burden of evidence. If some guy tells me that he's in personal communication with Grabxil, Supreme Warlord of Venus, then why should I be the one paying for the ticket to visit Venus in order to disprove this guy's existence?

Of course it also depends on the nature of the God. In internally inconsistent god (all forgiving, yet refuses to forgive certain actions) is not disproven, but certainly cannot reasonably exist. Believers will most likely adopt special pleading or interpret away these inconsistencies. Why does a loving God send us to Hell? Why, he doesn't! We send ourselves there. Why was a loving God such a cunt back in the Old Testament days? Well, it's obviously because the Hebrews were barbaric, and for some reason or other God had to abide by that. Hey, perhaps it's all about free will and stuff? Why does an all loving god permit suffering to exist? Well, that's definitely free will, isn't it? Hey, it's the corruption of the world cause by man. Yep, your child is dying painfully of leukemia because two simpletons a few thousand years ago had a fruity snack, and certainly God couldn't possibly intervene to avoid blaming the innocent for something done by someone else. That's how the stuff goes.

From personal experiences, it's pointless trying to disprove the existence of gods. One can spend hours debating, running through arguments and "evidence", to end up with the frustrating last ditch defense that it requires faith. Fuck it, why not just say that right from the beginning! You have no evidence, and you believe this because you have faith - fine. Then why waste time with this evidence and these fancy arguments you picked-up from a William Lane Craig book, when they're simply not relevant to why you personally belief this stuff? I can see the value in Jeff Dee's approach of asking people to provide their best argument first. What is it that actually makes them believe in their God - not what is it that they think will convert me?

Put another way, not believing in God/god(s) is not the same as believing there is/are no God/god(s).

Not even in the same league. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, yet a lack of evidence is reasonable grounds to assert disbelief. Let's say a guy is claiming that his car can fly. He believes this to be true, and I feel confident in asserting the opposite. He tells me that he can't give me a demonstration because the government radar will detect him. He claims the car has a super secret CIA made engine. I pop the hood and see nothing out of the ordinary. Overall, this appears to be a regular Chevy. Is my disbelief of his flying car the same as his positive beliefs? If not, then why is this any different to a belief in gods?

A new tactic of religious followers I have seen lately is to try and elevate atheists to the same level of what is "unknowable" (and I use that term loosely) as themselves, and it is maddening. I disbelieve in many things that I know to be untrue: unicorns, dragons, FSM (sorry to all the Pastafarians out there!), teapots circling the sun, etc.

The sheer amount of things to disbelieve in is absolutely infinite, there for it is safe to say to disbelieve in it all as a starting point, unless there is proof for it's existence.

Again, confusing disbelief with lack of belief. What evidence do you have that there are no teapots circling the sun? (I am assuming this excludes teapots on earth). What evidence do you have that a horse with a horn (unicorn) has never existed on this planet or another? Perhaps aliens placed tea pots in orbit around the sun as some sort of game (ridiculous but illustrative). Maybe there was some freakish mutation and a single horse had its main grow into a horn like structure. I don't believe any of t

If you have no proof of something existing or not existing, you do not know whether it exists or not.Thus it is a matter of belief.

Disbelief is having a belief, in an atheists case, the active belief that there can be no god in a traditional sense.Lack of belief would be the case for an agnostic, not believing in the existence or non-existence of a deity but simply stating that you are open to evidence either way, but up until that point, no steps will be taken assumiing a deity exi

>Disbelief is having a belief, in an atheists case, the active belief that there can be no god in a traditional sense.

This sentence is fundamentally incorrect. The dictionary meaning of the suffix "dis" is "the opposite or absence of". Therefore "disbelief" is the opposite or absence of belief. "Absence" can be described as a lack of something. Thus "disbelief" is essentially "a lack of belief".

The dictionary meaning of the word "disbelief" is the rejection of belief. How you think that disbelief is a belief is beyond me...

I find it instructive to reframe discussions regarding belief in god as discussions regarding belief in unicorns.

"Not believing in Unicorn/unicorn(s) is not the the same as believing there is/are no Unicorn/unicorn(s)." is thus easily revealed as the semantic niggling that it is. Either there's unicorns or there ain't; if there are, you believe in them.

Also, Christianity in the U.S. only seems benevolent to the extent that it does because Christianity's become a toothless tiger after 200+ years of secular l

No they don't. They are "intro" in the sense that they think only inside their own safe definitions. There's no bible colleges where they teach Creationism instead of evolution, and have honest introspective debates about fossil and experimental evidence of evolution. They don't have honest introspective debates about the history of religions gradually dropping opposition to one or another scientific theory as their superstition became laughable and a net liability. They're not really introspective about th

Yours is a false equivalence (and a false claim to inventing an existing word "theophobia" that means something different). There is a very substantial difference between insisting everyone believe in the same imaginary god as you, instead of their own imaginary gods, vs pointing out that any religion is slavery.

First, pointing out that religion is slavery doesn't insist anyone stop believing in it. It does say that religion isn't worth believing in, but it doesn't insist anyone stop.

There are two main issues here. The first is the rights of a country to limit internet access in line with their own laws. This could be holocaust denial in Germany, incitement to murder in the UK or copyright infringement in the US, the religion aspect has nothing to do with it (and given that no-images-of-the-prophet-Mohammed is a central tennant of Islam intended to prevent idol worship it's perfectly understandable).

The second issue is whether it's worth trying to block the offending sites when it's unlikely to be effective and there are pre-existing legal mechanisms. If I was to call for the murder of all members of $ethnicMinority then that's illegal in the UK, so should the UK government's response be to block Slashdot or to prosecute me? I'd argue that the latter is far more effective in every way, whilst protecting the freedoms of other Slashdot users.

Should I do the same but breaking the rules of another country (eg holocause denial is legal in the UK but not Germany) then it's down to the pre-existing extradition channels.

The first is the rights of a country to limit internet access in line with their own laws

Country also doesn't have the right to dictate own laws to companies in other countries. Pakistanis asked for good will gesture. Twitter refused as it would violate rights stated in their country laws.

They're not dictating laws to companies in other countries. They're not saying Twitter can't operate as they do, just that they're not prepared to assist them once the data hits the Pakistan border. This is equivalent to any western country blocking access to data (copyright infringement, child pornography, $randomEvil), even though it may be considered legal in the country they're hosted in.

I'm sorry but I fail to see how depicting an image of a dude is the same as advocating the extermination of a people or copyright violations.I think a better comparison would be the depiction of nudity in public in the US. Ashcroft even covered up lady justice because of her filthy boobs.

We have the same idol hang-ups as the Pakistanis and they're driven by retarded right wing extremist assholes. The constitution is intended to protect us from them, but it even fails to work in the US.

There's only one main issue, and that's the basic human right of free expression, unfettered by state or religion sponsored oppression.

The examples you cite aren't even remotely related and none actually justify morally or practically suppression of free speech.

Criminalizing Holocaust Denial, whatever it's achieved or claimed sociological benefits in Germany, is a political restraint on free speech probably no longer justifiable in Germany, even by it's supporters' standards. Now it's merely a technique to

Criminalizing Holocaust denial is a lazy shortcut. It obviously failed to stop some Germans from being Nazis, since there are still plenty. Meanwhile its abuse of free expression undermines the governments that enforce it.

It's much harder to actually stop nazism, especially in Germany where it has an actual legacy in families. But of course the harder course is necessary. Germany is at fault both for opposing liberty and for failing to snap all Germans out of their interest in one of the most hideous opposi

Pakistan isn't going to promote itself as a regional center in Asia. Eventually its power to cause problems for everyone that's based on its nukes will be circumvented by everyone else's interests that oppose it. The nukes that Reagan helped it get to promote the Star Wars "missile defense" will have run the course of their purpose and they'll be taken away. Iran, India, Russia and China will carve it up, either into actual countries or just markets.

Then do it already. Instead of jerking off into some Slashdot post while you fantasize about American theocratic talking points.

I'm sure you also insist on having guns "to protect the Constitution", especially since Obama was elected, even though you've done nothing especially since Bush/Cheney were inaugurated despite losing the election. Despite the disapproval of that Jesus would show on the second coming, if it weren't purely superstition.

Mohammed had 12 wives. You have evidence of polygamy on that scale in Christian Europe?
Mohammed was 52 years old when he consummated his marriage to the 9-year old Aisha. This was common in Christian Europe?
How was this progressive? How was Europe worse? Do tell defender of Islam.
.

It matters because Muhammad is considered an example for all Muslims to follow. His marrying Aisha at 6 (and bedding her at 9) sets the precedent for modern day child marriage and sex in the Muslim world. One famous example: Ayatollah Khomeni, who married a 10 year old. You don't have to look far to find thousands of other examples. What about Qur'an 4:34 (pick a translation on quran.com) which commands a husband to beat his wife. Could that not have something to do with the 90% of women in Pakistan who have suffered domestic abuse (or the one in four in Turkey, considered the most "progressive" of Muslim countries?) All religion is poison but some are worse than others.

Minor mistake on the statistics. It's four in ten women in turkey [globalpost.com], not one in four. That's 40% of women. And those who think this is limited to muslims in "those" countries -- sorry. 6 out of 10 Imams in Sweden were recently found to be giving out illegal advice on domestic abuse [jihadwatch.org]. And that's according to Swedish state tv. I don't see why so many in the west insist on shoving their heads in the sand in the name of "tolerance" (as if domestic violence was something that deserved tolerance). If a holy book tells people to do something, there is a pretty good chance they will.

Muslim law recognizes the age of consent starting at 7 years old. So does Christian law, as explained in this article [faqs.org] [faqs.org] that cites its sources:

In the Islamic tradition following Muhammad, betrothal could take place earlier than PUBERTY, perhaps as early as seven, but the marriage was not supposed to be consummated until the girl menstruated and was of age. In medieval Europe, Gratian, the influential founder of Canon law in the twelfth century, accepted the traditional age of puberty for marriage (

My point was that in a religion based legal/political system the logic of the religion is an integral part of the system (and I include the US and UK in this, even though I'm an atheist I still live in a country where the monarch is "defender of the faith" and we habitually swear on a bible in court). Whether this is a good thing or not is another issue.

Islamic art is fascinating, because depictions of humans and nature are discouraged to a greater or lesser degree, from "no pictures of the Prophet Moha

And it's for the same reasons, too. Muslim churches want a monopoly over the use of any reference to Mohammed. Prohibiting all images of him (including their own) creates a symbol vacuum into which the churches pour rhetoric that gains power from occupying that role. They insist on a monopoly over rhetoric about Mohammed, too.

Yes, that is all exactly the same as copyright and trademark monopoly, except without any "fair use" allowances. Which is where the US and Europe are marching, too.

I actually read TFA, hoping to see what, exactly, pissed them off, but apparently Pakistan's not telling.

Either Pakistan found a way to get around the Streisand Effect (if you just mass-block an entire large site and never say which particulars caused it, it gets no publicity), or they just wanted to censor it and found blasphemy to be a decent excuse.

I almost missed that it was back again today [battleswarmblog.com]. I participated in 2010 [battleswarmblog.com], but nobody seemed to be doing it in 2011. Glad to see it's back, and I would have missed it if Pakistan hadn't brought attention to it.

Everybody Draw Mohammed Day serves three important purposes:

1. It reaffirms that the First Amendment is alive and well, and that the United States legal system cannot, should not, and will not knuckle under to transnational demands for Sharia-compliant suppression of "blasphemy" as defined by oppressive theocratic Islamic states.2. To prove that in the 21st century censorship is self-defeating, as it only draws more attention to whatever is being censored than ignoring it would.3. To provide so many targets for would-be jihadists to assault that the give up due to the futility of the task. Theo Van Gogh is dead [city-journal.org] and Molly Norris is still in hiding [battleswarmblog.com]. Standing in solidarity with them proves to jihadists that using violence to achieve political ends in a free society is counter-productive (something people eager to attack Chicago cops with Molotov cocktails evidently haven't learned).

Why? Many Muslim organizations and individuals freely admit they would like to replace the constitution with Sharia. Some Christian organizations ( if you can find them ) say the same. Why is it OK to acknowledge one as a threat but not the other. It's not racism to acknowledge a religion as a danger. Look at the UK where Sharia courts are already established and the controversy surrounding that (needless to say, what they do is far more than what was originally advertised).

Where are Sharia courts established that are recognized as replacements for UK law?

Every democracy has groups that try to replace existing law with ones derived from their own personal heritage or interest, and many of those conflict with universal liberty as much as Sharia and other theocracy. Yes the US faces far more threats from Christian theocrats, atop existing laws that are just only according to Christianity (No alcohol sales on Sunday? No gay marriage?), than from Sharia. Anyone bringing up Sharia

Don't worry Islam apologist. If you want to see what happens when sharia law is in place, please look at: Pakistan, Malaysia, Maldives, Iran, Saudi Arabia, various African countries, etc.

Remember, a women's testimony is only worth half of that of a mans. And is worth less than that of a non-believer. Remember that treating women like chattel, is perfectly a-okay. Remember that beating your chattel, is perfectly a-okay, the Ulama happily point out the ways and publish materials on how to do this so you

I don't see why you Christfags don't get all bent out of shape about Dominionism and Prosperity Gospel and all the other shit the Evangelicals seem to keep trying to shove down everyone's throats.

Fuckhead.

So, want to feel and look like an asshole now? Well that's okay. I'm not christian, sorry to burst your bubble. I'm Jewish, reform at that.

As for priorities? Perhaps you'll get off your ass, and look at the cases of judges in the US trampling all over individual rights of people in the name of sharia law. Remember that guy in Ohio who was assaulted for wearing a Mohammed costume? No? Well google is there for you! Look it up. How about the mandatory prayer groups that are being forced on kids in var

I'm an agnostic and I agree with you that Santorum was a threat. That being said, to say that Islam is not a threat or that many Muslims do not seek to enforce Shariah in the United States would be a lie. Americans who seek to establish anti-Shariah legislation are merely seeking to avoid a situation like in the UK where there are already Shariah courts. [guardian.co.uk] The GP does have a point in that people like you who selectively criticize religion do come off as prejudiced. If you're going to criticize religion, a

The first amendment requires that the government not endorse a religion. This includes Islam too. Officially sanctioned Sharia courts would be therefore per-se illegal. We don't need more legislation, it's already done.

The only people who complain about Sharia courts in the US are politicians trying to ingratiate themselves with their "base."

All the while it's just fine with the RWNJs that Republicans wear their religion on their

Again. Both are a threat. I acknowledge that. I think most people would. It's you who is refusing to acknowledge Islam as any threat to western society despite the over 18,000 terrorist attacks since 9/11. It's you who refuse to acknowledge Islam is even "bad" in any way shape of form, as if to do so would cause some internal short circuit.
Yes, Shariah legislation is mostly redundant because of the first amendment, but there is nothing wrong with redundancy. Also, there is a difference between weari

Again. Both are a threat. I acknowledge that. I think most people would. It's you who is refusing to acknowledge Islam as any threat to western society despite the over 18,000 terrorist attacks since 9/11.

1. You are inflating statistics as if those happened here in the US.

2. You have not proven that all those are Islamist

3. That is a number you pulled from your ass

It's you who refuse to acknowledge Islam is even "bad" in any way shape of form,

This is the biggest load of horse shit in the entire thread and you have wilfully pulled the blinders over your eyes to not see this shit.

I got wind of Dominionism back in the *1980s* by listening to preachers on shortwave radio. Dominionism is *all about* subjugating everyone who doesn't buy into Dominion Gospel to the worst sorts of oppression.

Should we have a child porn day, too? Maybe soften it a bit and just draw the pictures. That would serve to show that we will not knuckle under to oppressive countries full of uptight rednecks on a jihad. "Blasphemy" is entirely subjective and totally in the eye of the beholder.

Sure. Here's Muhammad drilling his 12 year old wife:

o-,o-x

Now that's broken the Law in both Pakistan and the UK (in the UK the London 2012 logo is illegal given what 8-year-old Lisa Simpson's doing)

Before we get all high and mighty about stupid a-rabs getting upset over pictures of muhammed, lets remember that holocaust denial is illegal pretty much everywhere in eastern europe and is strongly censored everywhere else in the modern world. This is important because even though holocaust denialism's arguments have been thoroughly refuted on every front, they still aren't allowed to make them. This is a very strange policy and likely leads to more suspicion in this day and age, with censorship of an idea almost automatically giving weight to that idea.

So when we have mass huge contests for drawing pictures of muhammed, demonstrating our right to free speech with such a dividing, needless, harmful exercise, alienating an entire region of the earth, just remember: you aren't allowed to be disgusted when the islamic world responds with an International Holocaust Cartoon Competition [wikipedia.org].

you aren't allowed to be disgusted when the islamic world responds with an International Holocaust Cartoon Competition.

Of course you are. And the Muslims are allowed to be disgusted by the Mohammed competition. It's when you move from disgust to censorship that there's a problem. By the way, I *do* feel the European decisions to censor Holocaust deniers is wrong.

you aren't allowed to be disgusted when the islamic world responds with an International Holocaust Cartoon Competition.

On one level, that is correct, tit for tat, on another it really isn't (IMHO). Drawing pictures of Mohammad is more like when Family Guy makes fun of Jesus, it is kind of taboo, and bothers people, but in the end no harm done. Making fun of 6 million people dying is on a completely different level, infinitely worse then "cartoons".

No. We're allowed to be disgusted, just as Muslims are allowed to be disgusted. What we aren't allowed to do is go rioting through the streets, stabbing people, killing the artists, burning down embassies, and causing actual physical harm to others in retaliation. When was the last time you saw a Jew do that over a holocaust cartoon?

You said "you aren't allowed to be disgusted" not "all censorship is wrong no matter where it is" which most would agree with, certainly in the United States. It's also very telling you describe holocaust cartoons as "aimed to show western hypocricy" while Cartoons mocking a religious figure is "dividing, needless, harmful exercise". News flash: we are *already* divided. We find genocide offensive. They find mockery of a long dead paedophile warlord offensive. I have no problem with such a divide or, f

And given a fair trial. And not given the death penalty, which does not exist in Israel (they made an exception for Eichmann). So in your mind holding Nazi war criminals who aided in genocide accountable is somehow equivalent to terrorism, murder, rioting, and so forth?

Your reasoning unraveled right there. By juxtaposing offended feelings in the second paragraph with censorship taken to limit offended feelings, you blur the moral distinction between feeling offended and taking action upon others to prevent feeling offended. People have the right to give and take offense, there's nothing wrong with Europeans taking offense at Holocaust denial, nor is there anything wrong with Muslims taking offense at blasphemy. The trouble comes from the action of silencing others. By tra

In the USA the Catholic Church and other cults are working hard to prevent health insurers from paying for women's healthcare like contraception, even though that investment reduces payouts for the prevented conditions and reduces the amount the cult churches pay for the insurance. Despite the economics, logic and compassion arguing for the coverage, these cults are obsessed with preventing anyone from "blaspheming", even if the blasphemers aren't part of their cult.

Pakistan is far worse. But it's more a difference of degree than of category compared to the modern USA. Theocrats everywhere have more in common than divides them.

What popular web sites have been blocked in the US? How many books have been banned vs. any islamic country? Which cartoons have been declared unlawful? Where are the American road signs that say all non-practicing christians must exit the freeway? How many churches have been closed or burned down because with the tacit approval of the state?

Trademark and copyright prevent plenty of websites, books and other publications in the US. The US is careful to act quickly, before popularity makes it harder. "Pornographic" cartoons have been declared unlawful, even when later generations find them harmless. Churches used to get burned down with the tacit approval of the state all the time.

The fact that Pakistan is worse than America doesn't mean America doesn't also practice these repressions to an unacceptable degree. "Not as bad as Pakistan" isn't rea

No, we should not wait to knock on our neighbor's door. We should indeed clean up our own backyard, too. But consistency and a sensible strategy (to say nothing of ethical behavior) insist we oppose censorship wherever it damages anyone's rights.

What Pakistan's government or any foreign government chooses to do with regard to its censorship is only relevant to those affected citizens.

I beg to differ. Access to the truth, or at least to all places where that truth may be found, is a basic human right, one which transcends borders, draconian laws, religion, etc. I assert that every person on this planet has that right. So bite me. I most certainly will not stay out of the Pakistan government's disgraceful attempt to control their citizens by cutting them off from large portions of the Internet on some dip-shit religious argument.

+1 sensiblehowever the article should have mentioned how the block was implemented (dns, IP) and if there were workarounds people could use (simple as proxy?) making it more relevant for the "news for nerds" moniker.

What Pakistan's government or any foreign government chooses to do with regard to its censorship is only relevant to those affected citizens.

I beg to differ. Access to the truth, or at least to all places where that truth may be found, is a basic human right, one which transcends borders, draconian laws, religion, etc. I assert that every person on this planet has that right. So bite me. I most certainly will not stay out of the Pakistan government's disgraceful attempt to control their citizens by cutting them off from large portions of the Internet on some dip-shit religious argument.

It's their country and their culture. They WANT it this way. Pakistan means "Land of the Pure", after all. Their capitol city is "Islamabad". This is what they want. As long as they're not invading your country, let them do as they damn well please. Oh, and their "dip-shit religious government"? They like it, thanks.

You are living proof that the left has just as many people seeking dragons to slay abroad as the right does. Have you ever considered... just for a moment... that Pakistanis don't share your ide

1. No, many Pakistanis don't like it. Especially the many Pakistanis who have left Pakistan to live elsewhere.

2. Pakistan's religious oppression of rights and corrupt manipulation of communications both public and private in the service of an Islam that lets its rulers exploit its people is essential to the Afghanistan from which the Qaeda attacked America. It remains essential to the Taliban that form the core of that continuing threat to the US. It protected Binladen for years from being eliminated as an

Whenever one human oppresses another, particularly with ridiculous superstitious nonsense, it becomes the business of all of us. And when whole governments do it, the situation escalates into not just offensive, but an outright human rights issue.